2024:CGHC:33484 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 400 of 2024

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Gandhinagar, District Sarguja (C.G.)

... Appellant versus

1 - Jagdish Prasad Yadav S/o Sitaram Yadav, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Dulduli, Under Ramkola Police Station, District- Sarguja (C.G.)

... Respondent For Appellant/State : Mr. Ajit Singh, Government Advocate For Respondent : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

Order on Board

02/09/2024

1. The present appeal is heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2. This appeal is preferred against the findings and judgment of acquittal dated 07.08.2019 passed in case No. 1840/2016 by the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) acquitting respondent from the offence punishable under section 279, 337 and 338 IPC, in connection with Crime No. 217/2016, registered at Police Station, Gandhinagar, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.).

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 23.06.2016 at around

10:00 pm, the applicant Bala Prasad Ahirwar was going from Badni Jharia to his home on Ring Road, Kedarpur. He was taking a turn at Arun Sangeet Mahavidyalaya when at that very moment the driver of Bolero number CG 15 AD 1258, driving speedily and carelessly from Pratappur Chowk, hit and caused an accident due to which the applicant got injured. On 12.09.2016, the applicant had given information about the said incident in Ambikapur police station, on the basis of which an FIR bearing No. 217/2016 was registered against the driver of vehicle Bolero number CG 15 AD 1258 under sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. Injured Bala Prasad Ahirwar was sent to Shriram Hospital, Ambikapur for treatment. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. Thereafter, the documents of the said vehicle Bolero number CG 15 AD 1258 and the driving license of accused Jagdish Prasad Yadav were confiscated. Accused Jagdish Prasad Yadav was arrested and after thorough investigation, the charge sheet was prepared and presented before the court against the accused Jagdish Prasad Yadav by adding sections of crimes under sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Learned Counsel for the State contended that the judgment, finding, order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is illegal, improper and incorrect and is liable to be set aside. He further contended that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidences in its perspective and has succumbed in the surmises of conjectures. The learned Trial Court is not justified by discarding the evidence of complainant without there being any strong reason to discard the evidences of the prosecution.

5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent contended that the judgment passed by the Trial Court does not suffer any illegality or infirmity. He further contended that the Trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused.

6. I have heard learned Counsels for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

7. On perusal of record, it transpires that the question to be considered in the case is whether on 23.06.2016 at around 21:15 hrs at place Ring Road in front of Arun Sangeet Vidyalaya, under Police Station Gandhinagar, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh), which is a public road, accused Jagdish Prasad Yadav drove his vehicle Bolero CG 15 AD

1258 rashly and negligently endangering human life?

8. In support of its case, the prosecution has presented witnesses Prem Babu Singh (PW 1), applicant/victim Bala Prasad (PW 2), witness Basant Ahirwar (PW 3), Kush Khatri (PW 4), Dr. Sanjay Tripathi (PW 5), Sakshi Motilal. Yadav (PW 6), Shivbalak (PW 7), Raju Biswas (PW 8). The evidence of Nayan Sai Pankra (PW 9), witness investigator Brij Kishore Pandey (PW 10) has been conducted. The accused did not give any evidence in his defence.

9. The applicant/injured Bala Prasad (PW-2) has stated in his examination-in-chief that he recognizes the accused and the incident